Still, Baby, Still?
Posted by Robert Zimmer on 09.02.2010
Another Oil Rig Explodes in Gulf of Mexico
Multiple news organizations are reporting a breaking story out of the Gulf of Mexico -- yet another oil rig has exploded, 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Fortunately, it appears nobody was killed, and the rig is only operating at a drilling depth of 340 feet (in contrast to BP's Deepwater Horizon, which was drilling at a depth of nearly a mile below the surface). No oil is leaking -- yet.
Will we see another idiotic tweet from Sarah Palin? "@newrigexplosion: don't retreat -- reload and blow your wad in2 God's ocean again baby!" One has to wonder how many more times a disaster like this happens before the nation's crack, er, oil addicts realize that maybe it's time to put an end to this unsafe, environmentally unfriendly, and oh-so-20th century means of generating energy.
Readers, what do you think? Just a bit of bad luck, or should this be the last straw in the oil drink?
There will never be a last straw. Our government is all-in with the oil industry until they realize there's more money to be made with other energy sources. And it's probably not bad luck, since deregulation has set us up for more and more of these "accidents" - which aren't accidents at all, because they can be prevented. All we need now is for them to put chicken farms on these platforms and we can oil up our contaminated eggs before serving them to people and then saying "Nobody could have predicted people would get sick!"
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 02:27 PM
The day something like this makes a large corporation (american corporation) lose money and upsets some CEO's then stuff will change.
Until then we are all screwed
Welcome to the Plutocracy - Democracy has been DOA for a while now folks better learn to deal with it!
Posted By: Ruport (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 03:22 PM
Que the:
ITS OBAMA's FAULT comments.
Posted By: and... (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 03:45 PM
*Facepalm
Posted By: AG Awesome (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 05:08 PM
Did you roll out your "Jump to Conclusions" mat already, Zimmer?
No oil is leading- yet.
These things happen and they have failsafes. The problem with the previous oil spill is that the failsafe failed.
What is the alternative?
Stop drilling oil and completely depend on the MiddleEast?
South America?
How many jobs do we lose in that process?
Alternative energy? Who can afford to invest in it until the economy is fixed- who can afford it as a consumer (switching to solar or wind for anyone costs money).
Who powers electric cars? You plug them into an outlet in your house that is powered by what? Natural Gas, Coal, Oil from a powerplant?
What should we do?
That's a serious question for anyone willing to answer it.
Push the Gulf Coast into more joblessness by cutting off oil drilling? Keep people from driving to work everyday?
What is the answer?
The only facts that we know is that another rig had an explosion- this happens more than most of you think- and they have failsafes and this one worked (at least thats whats being reported).
You slam Palin, but once again she is not an elected offical and carries no offical power.
Yet, Obama, who is the President, has to make the choices.
So I hope when he makes the choice that all of you know he will make (which is to keep on drilling) that you take the time to slam him...
But I doubt it. Because Liberals are all hat and no cattle.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Hey Grant,
Seriously and this is not being a Troll...I thought there was the old saying you have to spend money to make money. Alternative energy is going to costly yes, but is the alternative future any better UNTIL we change over and discover something that will work.
And how many people really rely on the oil industry in the Gulf? I would bet FAR MORE people rely on the gulf itself for fishing trade among other things to make a living than those who are part of big oil.
See on one hand you want to get rid of our dependence on middle east oil but still want to be dependent on oil. How about making other nations dependent on OUR technology for once as a way to grow our economy.
See that is one of the many philosophical differences, I just don't see how anyone can defend more drilling
Posted By: saywhat (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 06:15 PM
You can't just switch to alternate energy overnight. As many downsides as oil has, it is far more efficient than any of the "alternative" fuels right now.
Solar panels are not nearly efficient enough yet. And putting enough up to generate a decent enough amount of energy is bad for the environment as well (it takes up space for all those panels).
Wind is another source touted by the environmentalists. Unfortunately, it is not a consistant source. No wind, no power. Yes, you can store power for when you have no wind, but it requires constantly changing the power grid, which is so inefficient, it is pointless.
Then you've got sources like nuclear which are actually highly efficient, but are so demonized by the ill informed that no politician will suggest them.
Posted By: Bemini (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 07:04 PM
Here we go again. Maybe I should ask Ashish for a column where I just correct Grant's lies.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 05:39 PM
"These things happen and they have failsafes. The problem with the previous oil spill is that the failsafe failed."
There are multiple failsafes on these rigs, and several of them were either not activated, not installed, or not working on Deepwater. To act as if this is as simple as "a fire alarm battery wasn't working - no big thing" is incredibly misleading.
"What is the alternative? Stop drilling oil and completely depend on the MiddleEast?South America?How many jobs do we lose in that process?"
Grant, the oil we drill in the Gulf and around our country isn't just for us. ALL oil goes into a global reserve. If we stopped drilling, the oil would still be there - maybe not as much, but we're nowhere near the Middle East or South America when it comes to production. Would oil rig workers lose their jobs? Yes - but weren't you against the auto industry loan? Weren't those jobs just as important? Or do you want to have it both ways? Besides, this isn't an "either/or" issue.
"Alternative energy? Who can afford to invest in it until the economy is fixed- who can afford it as a consumer (switching to solar or wind for anyone costs money)."
Same argument was used by horse ranchers when the combustion engine was created. Like another commenter pointed out, it takes money to make money. You and your ilk opposed space exploration for the same reason, yet now enjoy everything we've discovered because of it.
"Who powers electric cars? You plug them into an outlet in your house that is powered by what? Natural Gas, Coal, Oil from a powerplant? What should we do?"
The better question: what do YOU suggest we do? All conservatives say is what we can't do, not what we can do. We've made our suggestions: invest in alternative energy sources, spend the money, reap the rewards. What do you think China is doing right now? They're so far ahead of us on light rail and precious mineral development it's scary. We're going back to gravel roads.
"You slam Palin, but once again she is not an elected offical and carries no offical power."
So only elected officials wield power? Please.
"Yet, Obama, who is the President, has to make the choices. So I hope when he makes the choice that all of you know he will make (which is to keep on drilling) that you take the time to slam him..."
Shockingly yes, liberals will slam Obama when he does something conservative.
"But I doubt it. Because Liberals are all hat and no cattle."
No Grant, you're the one who's all talk. You spew right wing talking points and offer zero solutions other than "keep doing what we're doing."
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 08:36 PM
If any of you know a better way to keep feeding the Military-Industrial Complex than staying on oil, I'd like to hear it. Foreign wars subsidize gas, and our dependence on foreign oil "necessitates" endless expenditures on bombs and bullets. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship that keeps America's government spending orgy going. That's why conservatives strongly oppose it. Oh, wait...
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on September 02, 2010 at 09:51 PM
"and the rig is only operating at a drilling depth of 340 feet"
And if this is true that will solve a lot of problems they had with capping BP's rig...which they and the state wanted to and agreed to drill at a shallower depth in the first place, till the feds told everyone they had to drill that deep, caused their own problems, and then blamed everyone but themselves when things went wrong (as well as running terrified from their own idiotic liability cap).
Posted By: Omni (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 03:22 AM
Hey Look Grant is Back Trolling again!! Yeah!
Are we supposed to take you seriously on this one? Remember that time you admitted you were a troll? Do you want us to just assume all your posts are trolling?
Posted By: Charles (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 08:56 AM
Denmark gets 18-24% of its power from windmills. There are also plenty of places to put them with consistent wind flow **hint** they are usually by large bodies of water, oceans, great lakes ect...that is why Chicago is the windy city by the way.
Solar is also plausible. San Diego just approved the building a massive 100MW solar power plant as we speak.
There are biomass possibilities in development, and let's not forget our good friend Nuclear power.
The reality is there are alternatives. Is there one all powerful savior solution no, not now.
But Grant you see your idiotic rant is akin to looking at the first cell phones and saying "well, they are too big so we should not bother with them, it will never get better."
Now I'm not an engineer...I know you will follow this up by telling us how you have a PHD in Nuclear physics or something stupid like that.
But this is for everyone else, from Tesla(they car not the Modern Day Cowboy band \m/) to Green Mountain Energy, the future is here. Why else would major oil companies start investing in green solutions.
Stop playing the Liberal vs Conservative game, it is a losing battle. No Ideology has ever proven to be 100% correct.
Vote for leaders looking for a solution, they are there, on both parties.
Posted By: I'll play (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Until there is an energy source as plentiful, reliable and cheap as oil no, you wont see oil go away. Wind will not supply the amount of energy this country needs, neither will solar. Most electric devices require something ELSE to generate electricity. The oil companies and energy companies have had to take money and manpower away from research and development in order to meet the mostly outrageous safety demands and regulations government keeps putting on them.
Posted By: CM Wolf (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 11:35 AM
BLAME OBAMA!!!!!!!!
Posted By: TRUTH (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Gary, what solutions have you come up with. All you do is slam Grant. Raise Taxes on the rich and spend more. That's your only solution.
Heres ONE solution; nuclear. Which side has pushed that for 20 years, and which side hasn't? You liberals worship France, and most of their energy comes from nuclear. But NOT HERE. Here in the good old USA, we have to get things approved by about 570891731908 different government agencies, and left wing environmental extremists (who don't give a shit about the environment at all) have to approve of everything. And at the end of the day, WHO do you think pays the price Gary? You genius you. Is it the single mother who commutes 40 minutes to work every day, or the millionaire who has 10 SUV's. Of course it's the single mother, who now has to spend more to keep her electricity on, and more at the gas station.
We already have invested billions on alternative energy solutions, they are subsidized like crazy (and still far more expensive AFTER the massive subsidies). The left wants us to go back to the covered wagon, and light our homes with candles. How... Progressive. Meanwhile, day after day, man-made global warming gets holes blown in it, as it's proving to be nothing more than to line Al Gore's pockets (capitalism sucks huh Al?).
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 01:01 PM
If any of you drive a car the runs on gas and say we shouldn't drill for oil,you are a hypocrite and your argument is invalid.
Posted By: JFD (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 01:20 PM
The libs make it sound like there is no money being invested in "alternate" energy sources currently.
What do Jason and GaryML expect people to do to get to work? Delivery drivers, sales reps, truck drivers, service techs, plumbers, contractors, etc.... all need their own cars. they can't ride light rail to work. Battery operated cars cost 35,000$ a pop.
Maybe we need to act like that lib, Al Gore loving turd who held up the discovery channel.
Solar panels are not going to replace oil. You all know it. This idiotic bitching about oil is just another pathetic attempt to take over peoples lives. Jason Douglas does not care if gas is 10 bucks a gallon. He will still have his union, city job. Meanwhile the economy would go into chaos.
All of you nitwits keep fantasizing about solar cars and wind turbine buses or whatever nonsense you think is going to make oil go away.
Hey I know.....nuclear energy, the french love it.
By the way Zimmer, your obsession with Palin is unhealthy. This women is in charge of nothing but crawling in all of you libs empty heads. Must be lonely up there for her.
Maybe all of you leftys can dig cap and trade out of the grave. Vote for it so our electricity rates can "necessarily skyrocket".
Posted By: John (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 01:44 PM
How is Sarah Palin deciding energy policy when she has no public office and democrats have ran congress since 2006?
Posted By: Guest#3645 (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 02:08 PM
Hold on to your bicycles people. When we finally run out of oil, people will probably be killing each other over them since we aren't worried about investing in future technologies.
Posted By: DSJ (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 03:13 PM
You know the best way to end the use of coal/oil? Stop buying it.
If you stop buying energy generated from burning coal and petroleum, the producers coal/petroleum will no longer profit from producing it. Also, power companies will no longer profit from generating coal/petroleum based energy.
It starts with the individual. So if you are using coal/petroleum based energy to write articles about the horrors using coal/petroleum based energy, lead by example. Stop using.
How simple is that? The answer is right in front of you.
PS: For Jason. Yes, natural gas and coal gasification. Got plenty of it, its easy to use, enviro friendly and completely domestic.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 05:59 PM
"And how many people really rely on the oil industry in the Gulf? I would bet FAR MORE people rely on the gulf itself for fishing trade among other things to make a living than those who are part of big oil."
I'll take that bet.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 06:02 PM
so basically what we're all saying is we want nuclear power? so we're in agreement then. good job.
Posted By: wezel (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 06:17 PM
Too much of a coincidence right after BP's fiasco. Maybe it's time to look into oil drilling and recovery within our country's own borders and tap the reserves that are known to exist.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 06:36 PM
"And how many people really rely on the oil industry in the Gulf? I would bet FAR MORE people rely on the gulf itself for fishing trade among other things to make a living than those who are part of big oil."
I'll take that bet.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 06:02 PM
How Much? Because I can really clean up off you. You ever been there? Now anyone from there that is affected? Are are you just making some stuff up (which wouldn't be surprising)
In Louisiana alone just the sport fishing industry supports about 7500-8000 Jobs. That is ONE state and ONE small aspect of it. Then you have Industrial Fishing, Private board Captains who run their own fishing companies.
Oh and for John
28.4 billion currently being allocated by the government for Renewable Energy
The budget is what 3-4 trillion? lets cut it in the middle and call it 3.5 Trillion maybe it's more maybe less.
So we are spending a little under 1% (.08) of the total federal budget on renewable energy. This is they way to find a solution?
Yeah and all the dems, libs or whatever the word of the month is, they REALLY want to put a halt to every and all gas vehicles. Your not with the rest of us on this planet if that is what you really think.
Asking to spend money on a solution, something a little more than 1% isn't asking alot.
BTW John just so you are aware, because you seem to be unaware. Oil is a FINITE resource. It will eventually run out. What do we do then? Do we condemn future generations and just say yeah, well to bad couldn't be bothered to find a solution for oil for you guys? That is your plan....really?
Posted By: saywhat (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 08:29 PM
Grant, the oil we drill in the Gulf and around our country isn't just for us. ALL oil goes into a global reserve. If we stopped drilling, the oil would still be there - maybe not as much, but we're nowhere near the Middle East or South America when it comes to production. Would oil rig workers lose their jobs? Yes - but weren't you against the auto industry loan? Weren't those jobs just as important? Or do you want to have it both ways? Besides, this isn't an "either/or" issue.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 08:36 PM
Let's build more cars and drill less oil.
Posted By: Wtf (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 09:01 PM
In Louisiana alone just the sport fishing industry supports about 7500-8000 Jobs. That is ONE state and ONE small aspect of it. Then you have Industrial Fishing, Private board Captains who run their own fishing companies.
Oh and for John
28.4 billion currently being allocated by the government for Renewable Energy
The budget is what 3-4 trillion? lets cut it in the middle and call it 3.5 Trillion maybe it's more maybe less.
So we are spending a little under 1% (.08) of the total federal budget on renewable energy. This is they way to find a solution?
Yeah and all the dems, libs or whatever the word of the month is, they REALLY want to put a halt to every and all gas vehicles. Your not with the rest of us on this planet if that is what you really think.
Asking to spend money on a solution, something a little more than 1% isn't asking alot.
BTW John just so you are aware, because you seem to be unaware. Oil is a FINITE resource. It will eventually run out. What do we do then? Do we condemn future generations and just say yeah, well to bad couldn't be bothered to find a solution for oil for you guys? That is your plan....really?
Posted By: saywhat (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 08:29 PM
I agree 100%, why is it that our government has pumped a trillion dollars into dead-end investments the past 2 years but they can't find the money to invest in alternate energy? The liberals love to lean on that crutch, but in the end they're just talking the talk.
Sink a trillion dollars over the next few years into federal grants for research and development, but don't hand the money away to corporations. Go to college campuses, find the guys out there with the good ideas and get them the money! America has been stopped in it's tracks because the cream has risen to the top. There's still people with great ideas who don't have access to the resources needed to make their dreams become a reality.
Find the solution, it's out there.
Then invest in rebuilding our INFRASTRUCTURE!
It'll be expensive, but it'll create hundreds of thousands of jobs over decades, it'll put America once again at the forefront of technoligies, it'll clean up the environment and most importantly, it'll bring us together as a nation and make people proud to be an American, once again.
I don't care if it's a Republican a Democrat, a third party candidate, because in the end America and it's citizens will benefit from this. We can argue the politics later but do this now.
Obama, Palin...someone, get it done before I make sure it gets done! I don't want to add to the unemployment rate, but if someone in Washington doesn't step up, they'll be out of jobs very soon!
Posted By: 21st Century American (Guest) on September 03, 2010 at 09:16 PM
Denmark gets 18-24% of its power from windmills. There are also plenty of places to put them with consistent wind flow **hint** they are usually by large bodies of water, oceans, great lakes ect...that is why Chicago is the windy city by the way.
Posted By: I'll play
Fun fact: Chicago was actually dubbed "The Windy City" because of our politicians. I'm serious, look it up.
gwpbrian:
Where do we store the nuclear waste? Anyone you ask will give the same answer: "As far away from me as possible". I also don't know anyone who wants it transported through their community. How do we secure the plants themselves, which are obvious major terror targets? Only an alert airline passenger prevented another disaster in that field, and the more nuclear plants we have the more inevitable it becomes that an attempt to cause a meltdown will succeed. Are you willing to call for more government regulation AND funding to guard against those risks, or are we just to cross our fingers and hope for the best? Would regulation start strong but later be chipped away at by funding reductions like other government safety agencies? If you can propose tight safety measures that will be maintained, nuclear might work. If it would just fall victim to the Republican strategy of setting up a bureaucracy, undermining it, then claiming that failure as proof that regulation doesn't work, then I'd rather not.
AdmChesterMynutz:
Just like oil, coal is being retrieved at a tidy profit by defying safety regulations and making miners work in death traps. Can we make mine owners stop killing workers before we advocate a vast expansion? Even that's on the presumption that coal isn't still horrible for the environment.
BTW, coal is finite, even if we have 100 years worth. We will eventually have to find a renewable energy source. Why must we let some other country discover it first and end up selling the technology to us at a premium? Kicking the can down the road is why this country is collapsing. Our economy dominated the world when we were passionate about research and development. I'd much rather we spent big now and permanently solve the issue of energy production. Along with food and health care, it is the biggest and most costly issue every society faces. Remember how prices jumped when gas spiked at $4 a gallon. Cheaper, renewable energy could substantially help our entire economy.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on September 04, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Just like oil, coal is being retrieved at a tidy profit by defying safety regulations and making miners work in death traps. Can we make mine owners stop killing workers before we advocate a vast expansion? Even that's on the presumption that coal isn't still horrible for the environment.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on September 04, 2010 at 12:46 PM
You know, not that I particularly disagree with what you're saying about a lot of coal companies, but there's a good bit of coal energy that comes from just outside Gillette, Wyoming. They do a lot of strip mining. Y'know, it's considered destructive to the environment but then they turn around and plant trees when they're finished, effectively foresting large portions of what was previously just bland desert land. Land that has actually been proven as being twice as productive as it was before they ever began, but I digress...
And being a severe asthmatic and having lived there, a few miles off from the giant coal stacks, they really don't produce as much pollution as everyone makes out. But then, the coal there has a very, very low sulfur content, especially when directly compared to the other 3/5ths of coal energy in the US.
And this isn't even beginning to take into account the fact that WILD coal fires typically happen anyway. Underground or not, coal just likes to burn. Whether or not we use it for energy wild coal fires in China alone account for nearly 3% of the worldwide CO2 production from fossil fuels -- that's as much as the United States produces from regular vehicle usage each year, by the way.
Even if the companies out in Wyoming are providing a huge amount of the nation's coal energy, and have far more safe than traditional coal mines, and they manage to do more environmental good than harm, explain to me why using this particular energy source is bad and/or wrong while other research and development takes place?
Posted By: loony (Guest) on September 04, 2010 at 10:42 PM
It's all Obama's fault. A Republican President would never have allowed all this "Oil Drilling" Nonsence to happen.
Posted By: Guest#5545 (Guest) on September 04, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Jason...as usual your comments rarely address the issue but here, it is a windy city here is why, I looked it up:
One small explanation for Chicago being a naturally breezy area is that it is on the shores of Lake Michigan. Another contributing factor is how the city was rebuilt after the Great Chicago Fire in 1871; because the city planners modeled the new streets on the grid system, it resulted in man-made wind tunnels in high density areas, such as the Chicago Loop, where the wind could travel down the columns and rows formed by the buildings, picking up speed. However, regardless of these facts, Chicago is not noted to be significantly windier than any other U.S. city. For example, the average annual wind speed of Chicago is: 10.3 mph (16.6 km/h); Boston: 12.4 mph (20.0 km/h); New York City, Central Park: 9.3 mph (15.0 km/h); and Los Angeles: 7.5 mph (12.1 km/h).[2]
The following "windy city" explanation is from the Freeborn County Standard of Albert Lea, Minnesota, on November 20, 1892[3]:
“ Chicago has been called the “windy” city, the term being used metaphorically to make out that Chicagoans were braggarts. The city is losing this reputation, for the reason that as people got acquainted with it they found most of her claims to be backed up by facts. As usual, people go to extremes in this thing also, and one can tell a stranger almost anything about Chicago today and feel that he believes it implicitly.
But in another sense Chicago is actually earning the title of the “windy” city. It is one of the effects of the tall buildings which engineers and architects apparently did not foresee that the wind is sucked down into the streets. Walk past the Masonic Temple or the Auditorium any day even though it may be perfectly calm elsewhere, and you will meet with a lively breeze at the base of the building that will compel you to put your hand to your hat.
Posted By: I'll play (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Wow, did anyone else see that both 21st Century American and Say What, blamed liberals for doing ruining the country and then offer solutions that liberals presented and even pushed past the ever present "so no and everything will be better Conservatives"? Awesome guys, I hope one day you realize your party hates you.
Posted By: Really? (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Wow, did anyone else see that both 21st Century American and Say What, blamed liberals for doing ruining the country and then offer solutions that liberals presented and even pushed past the ever present "so no and everything will be better Conservatives"? Awesome guys, I hope one day you realize your party hates you.
Posted By: Really? (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 11:06 AM
What are you talking about? The "solutions" are less than 1% of the budget as I cited.
YES renewable energy is the answer and NO it's not being funded nearly enough. I do not see the problem with any of that. They proposed renewable energy but aren't doing enough.
I guess is this day and age you have to blindly follow a certain party and never question anything they do is that your idea? You CAN like what a party is offering and then think they aren't doing enough....it's you know perfectly logical.
Drilling for more Oil is not the answer but seems to be the one the conservative party (whatever shape that takes now) seems to like the most.
It's people like this who seem to be totally out of the loop. Just because you like what a certain party stands for on a certain issue doesn't mean you are in complete agreement with how to accomplish that goal....I know its a higher level learning concept, I'll stop it there to try and not further confuse you.
Posted By: saywhat (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Whoever the idiot is that cited 8000 fishing jobs in LA as some sort of amazing number...The city of Beaumont, Texas alone has close to 8000 citizens employed in the oil industry. Another 8000 (at least) in Port Arthur, another 3000 in the surrounding area. And the entire community surrounding the refineries (1.7 million people)? Their jobs and businesses are based around the production of said products or they would go out of business without that production.
Now, I don't live in Louisiana, but I do know this: Sulfur, Vinton, and Lake Charles almost certainly have enough oil-related jobs (not including off-shore rig work) to cancel out the entire fishing industry of that state. And when you look to Texas, the stretch of coast between Beaumont and Corpus Christi is home to the most sought-after and expensive commercial property in.the.world. for what reason? The oil industry.
It's not just oil either. Until you learn how to make plastics out of things other than petroleum, you are going to depend on oil.
Or you can learn how to make 90% of all medical and industrial equipment out of something other than plastic...
HERP AND DERP
Posted By: Herp Derp (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 03:57 PM
When Ted Kennedy was still alive he campaigned against putting Windmills in his state, they were going to ruin his view.
The problem is everyone is NIMB, Not In My Backyard.
Where is nuclear waste to be stored? Yucca mountain? What happens if there is an accident and it spills. They pick it back up and put it back on the train. They've been preparing for this since the 50s and 60s.
The Simpsons is not where you go to find out what Nuclear Waste looks like and is like. There is no green glowing sludge. Nuclear waste looks like Rabbit droppings. And while it does still have radioactive qualities, it isn't vary dangerous.
Three Mile Island, is the worse case scenario and is always pointed at by everyone who hates the idea. That was the equivalent of crashing your car into a gas station while it was on fire. Long Term Effects? Nil.
Solar Panels make horrific waste too, just not very politically-correct to point it out. Wind Farms get shot down by the NIMBY crowd. Hydrogen cells are expensive to produce and to refuel. Lithium batteries of Hybrid and Electric cars are dangerous and are hazardous to the environment.
The truth is that no energy source without consequences. Wind and Nuclear produce steam out of everything else. Solar produces toxins in the front end of things. And then it's not as good as needed for our power consumption needs.
Hopefully one day we'll perfect solar powering, miniaturize nuclear power and get over politicizing power sources in either a pro or con state/
Posted By: DeimosMasque (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 04:54 PM
Whoever the idiot is that cited 8000 fishing jobs in LA as some sort of amazing number...The city of Beaumont, Texas alone has close to 8000 citizens employed in the oil industry. Another 8000 (at least) in Port Arthur, another 3000 in the surrounding area. And the entire community surrounding the refineries (1.7 million people)? Their jobs and businesses are based around the production of said products or they would go out of business without that production.
Now, I don't live in Louisiana, but I do know this: Sulfur, Vinton, and Lake Charles almost certainly have enough oil-related jobs (not including off-shore rig work) to cancel out the entire fishing industry of that state. And when you look to Texas, the stretch of coast between Beaumont and Corpus Christi is home to the most sought-after and expensive commercial property in.the.world. for what reason? The oil industry.
It's not just oil either. Until you learn how to make plastics out of things other than petroleum, you are going to depend on oil.
Or you can learn how to make 90% of all medical and industrial equipment out of something other than plastic...
HERP AND DERP
Posted By: Herp Derp (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 03:57 PM
If you had bothered to read i was referring to one SMALL ASPECT of fishing...NOT the whole industry.
Also if we are going to play connect the dots with what is related to what why not include tourism in with Fishing...some people come down to see the wildlife and fish. If we do that you have no case at all since that is 100 Billion dollar Industry or nearly 1/2 of the entire revenue of the gulf area which has been affected by this.
But that is if you want to play that connect the dot game, unless of course all the tourists come too see those lovely oil rigs out there, then you can claim that.
Posted By: saywhat (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Did you roll out your "Jump to Conclusions" mat already, Zimmer?
No oil is leading- yet.
These things happen and they have failsafes. The problem with the previous oil spill is that the failsafe failed.
What is the alternative?
Stop drilling oil and completely depend on the MiddleEast?
South America?
How many jobs do we lose in that process?
Alternative energy? Who can afford to invest in it until the economy is fixed- who can afford it as a consumer (switching to solar or wind for anyone costs money).
Who powers electric cars? You plug them into an outlet in your house that is powered by what? Natural Gas, Coal, Oil from a powerplant?
What should we do?
That's a serious question for anyone willing to answer it.
Push the Gulf Coast into more joblessness by cutting off oil drilling? Keep people from driving to work everyday?
What is the answer?
The only facts that we know is that another rig had an explosion- this happens more than most of you think- and they have failsafes and this one worked (at least thats whats being reported).
You slam Palin, but once again she is not an elected offical and carries no offical power.
Yet, Obama, who is the President, has to make the choices.
So I hope when he makes the choice that all of you know he will make (which is to keep on drilling) that you take the time to slam him...
But I doubt it. Because Liberals are all hat and no cattle.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Raise the price of gas so people don't drive as much, it's that simple, an idea my economics teacher had, it would force us to change the ways we live our lives...
Posted By: Guest#0969 (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 08:51 PM
No Grant, you're the one who's all talk. You spew right wing talking points and offer zero solutions other than "keep doing what we're doing."
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on September 02, 2010 at 08:36 PM
I second that!
Posted By: Guest#2666 (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 08:54 PM
"Raise the price of gas so people don't drive as much, it's that simple, an idea my economics teacher had, it would force us to change the ways we live our lives..."
And who is that really going to hurt? The rich guy making millions or the guy who's working 2 jobs to make ends meet?
Me and my fiancee got through a tank a week, in a Scion xA (24 city) so that she makes enough to counter my unemployement and we can get food and living supplies. That's it.
That's almost $30 a week just so we can live. Raise that to $50 or $60 a week and then we are just pretty much done being able to afford a home and food.
Posted By: DeimosMasque (Guest) on September 05, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Perhaps our energy crisis will be solved as soon as we put down partisan solutions and attack the problem as a whole?
We need drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, as oil from there is PART of the puzzle. It obviously needs better regulation, but you do not need to shut everything down to do so. Roll out the regulations over two years to give companies time to adjust, and design them so that they can be properly enforced (which was, to my knowledge, the real problem).
Why in the heck is nuclear power so scary? It works for other countries. There are a lot of people that will say "Not in my backyard", so start with those that will.
Similarly, why the pushback against alternative energy sources? As mentioned, it takes money to make money, and our country needs more genuine energy independence.
There is no solution that works best for everyone. I think windmills, as an example, would work great in the non-metropolitan parts of Texas, particularly if you implement revenue-sharing with the land owners as an incentive. It wouldn't work in, say, the Northeast... but that's no reason not to use it where it would work.
Each side seems to be looking at everyone else's solutions and saying "Well, that doesn't work for , so it sucks" instead of saying "A comprehensive solution that covers what works for each region may help everyone involved".
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on September 07, 2010 at 11:59 AM
saywhat and Herp Derp: Given the "biased New Orleanian" viewpoint I have, I gotta believe that damage to the gaming/fishing industry supercedes the oil industry BY FAR. A huge portion of Louisiana's income as a whole comes from tourism and, as I tell people, there are two differences between New Orleans and Las Vegas: The Culture and The Food. You are damaging the livelihood of a full metropolitan area and everyone that depends on said Metropolitan Area (read: most of Louisiana) by damaging The Food.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on September 07, 2010 at 12:10 PM
STAY CURRENT